MessiahCarey wrote: the only negative affect that sets sex aside from other interests is the possibility of accidental procreation (and subsequent overpopulation).

wrong...very wrong

I guess somebody else's life isn't affected in the least bit when you fuck them and never talk to them again

some are comfortable with that...but they go into it knowing it's just sport fucking

in MOST CASES...the male is the one that's simply trying to get some, while the girl goes on to get used...again, "most cases"...this is obviously not always true. I've seen plenty of guys get used as well (and them being very upset about it)

I guess people in themselves are completely irrelevant here...

the simple act of you listening to music in your room by yourself has no negative DIRECT effect on other people..."sport sex" does simply because in most cases the other person doesn't know it's just "sport". Bringing up difference in tastes and how that leads to fights is completely irrelevant here...that taking some steps away from the actual action of listening to music. And it was a worthless example to begin with because fighting over what music you like is stupid in itself

just in case: there's another reply in the last page

Last edited by Nope on Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:12 pm

MessiahCarey

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924

I agree...my music analogy may have been a little misguided for the reason you said - it's stupid. Just like lying to a partner (or potential partner) is stupid.

You are talking about things that aren't specific to the sexual act and using them to condemn someone for having (whatever you deem as) "too much" sex.

Again...if a guy lies to a woman in order to get sex, he is an asshole. If he does it on a regular basis, he's a real big asshole.

And while these circumstances happen, it isn't your place or mine to judge other people unless they've done it to us or someone we know - then we can judge them based on the MALICIOUS actions they have taken, not simply the merit that they were "having sex a lot".

Are you seeing what I'm saying? These things you mention are wrongs that are NOT sex-specific. They are the wrong thing to do whether it's in regards to sex or something else.

An "excess" of sex isn't bad unless people aren't being honest with each other...so you can't blame the sex - you have to blame the lying.

Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:20 pm

Nope

Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 1916

I was never blaming "sex"...I've been blaming the person from the start.

People I know (or have known). And people that are worth calling "sluts"

people were saying the term never applies. I was countering that point.

"I don't see how anybody can say that there is nothing wrong with letting your sexual urges control you all the time"

do you think there's nothing wrong with that?

Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:24 pm

MessiahCarey

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924

RandomSurge wrote:

MessiahCarey wrote: I understand. But you are talking about things that isn't specific to the sexual act.

Again...if a guy lies to a woman in order to get sex, he is an asshole. If he does it on a regular basis, he's a real big asshole.

And while these circumstances happen, it isn't your place or mine to judge other people unless they've done it to us or someone we know - then we can judge them based on the MALICIOUS actions they have taken, not simply the merit that they were "having sex a lot".

Are you seeing what I'm saying? These things you mention are wrongs that are NOT sex-specific. They are the wrong thing to do whether it's in regards to sex or something else.

An "excess" of sex isn't bad unless people aren't being honest with each other...so you can't blame the sex - you have to blame the lying.

I was never blaming "sex"...I've been blaming the person from the start

"I don't see how anybody can say that there is nothing wrong with letting your sexual urges control you all the time"

do you think there's nothing wrong with that?

If it makes you neglect your responsibilities, then yes.

If you lie because of it, yes.

But having sex a lot doesn't dictate that either of those things happen. This conversation started with you condemning the idea of having sex with multiple partners and a high frequency - the problem is that it's not the sex you have a problem with, it is how people acquire it and the affect it has on their lives...different scenarios, and ones that you MUST know more details about than simply "they have a lot of sex". You can't know there's anything negative about a person simply because they dork a lot of people...so it's unfair to judge. If you find out some dude lied to several women in order to coerce sexual activity then you can judge them based on their dishonesty - not the fact that they wanted to have sex with whoever they could.

So basically...we agree. Heh. I just don't hold a judgement of someone based solely on the knowledge that they seek to have sex whenever possible. However, I am right with you in being disgusted at the typical behaviour of the alpha-male in their attempt to acquire sex, beleive that.

Peace to you.

- Shane

Last edited by MessiahCarey on Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:34 pm; edited 1 time in total

Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:30 pm

Nope

Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 1916

but why are the people lying? because they want sex...it's simple

they wouldn't be lying to the other person if they didn't want some ass

these people deserve to be called sluts because they will lie to people (and not only that, I have mentioned plenty of other things done) just to get sex

I defined slut as "somebody that is a slave to reproductive organs"

in other words...that will do anything to get some ass...all the time and their lives revolve around that

Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:33 pm

MessiahCarey

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924

We're going in circles here. Chicken, egg? Heh.

WHY they are lying, to me, is largely irrelevant. They could be lying about anything...again - it is the lie that is wrong, not the sex. I will judge them based on their lies, not what they choose to do with their bodies or how often they choose to do it. I think it's a good policy.

- Shane

Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:37 pm

Jesse

Joined: 02 Jul 2002
Posts: 6165
Location: privileged homeless

The problem here, randomsurge, is that you have effectively redefined the word "slut" to suit your own purposes. In fact, you're either using it very broadly or with very little consistancy.

(b) being emotionally dishonest in the pursuit of... well let's not even specify, let's just say it's wack.

The thing is, a "slut" is not traditionally defined as someone who is obsessed with sex, nor as someone who treads all over the hearts of others. I can see how, colloquially, it might get bent into those neighborhoods but the tradition matters.

A slut is traditionally a worthless woman. This could be a sexual judgement or just because she's lower class. The sexually pejorative connotation has pretty much taken over because that's the way things tend to go.

The slut is nominally the used rather than the user, that's the thing. A slut is a girl who it doesn't even matter if you fuck her because she's not really a person. This meaning is mixed, at some concentration, in with every other possible use of the word.

You want to criticize compulsive sex addicts and sleazeballs? Find a new word.

Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:39 pm

Nope

Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 1916

you're saying you don't agree with the judging of people that "have lots of sex"

I was never discussing that :) and I agree with you

people were saying the term slut doesn't ever apply...which I think I have proved that it does.

You can sit here and say how things don't apply and it's wrong to say them...but once you've seen shit happen and know the specifics then you might think a little differently

Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:40 pm

Nope

Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 1916

jesse:

meanings of words can't evolve?

Everything must mean what the first dictionary of the english language says it does?

if you're going to use THAT definition then sure...you're right

But who the fuck thinks of "slut" that way anymore?

Quote: I can see how, colloquially, it might get bent into those neighborhoods but the tradition matters.

yeah it matters...but it's obsolete

the dictionary used to say "gay" meant being happy. And ONLY THAT.

The "sexual orientation" part was just recently added (recently in the context of the history of the word)

Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:45 pm

Nope

Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 1916

look up "nigger" in the dictionary

go tell people not to use it in a friendly manner and that they should get another word

edit: I understand how this example might be problematic, but you get the point

Last edited by Nope on Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:52 pm; edited 1 time in total

Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:50 pm

Jesse

Joined: 02 Jul 2002
Posts: 6165
Location: privileged homeless

I would (and did) argue that EVERYONE bears that meaning with them in their colloquial usages. I would further invite you to check out a dictionary (www.dictionary.com will do if you're lazy) and see whether your two meanings are present in any form.

I'm not saying you're stupid or out to lunch, I know the word works a little overtime ("When I make a word do extra work, I pay it extra!" - Humpty Dumpty, Through The Looking Glass) but you have kind of hijacked my point into a sort of a strawman situation.

You brought up your points in rebuttal to mine, but I don't think they really work out that way.

Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:51 pm

Nope

Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 1916

jesse:

not too long ago the homesexual connotation of the term gay was not in the dictionary either

I think bring up the dictionary here is completely irrelevant.

We're talking about when PEOPLE call OTHER PEOPLE sluts

and in the context in which they mean it

I knew what the dictionary says beforehand, but I'll post the meanings here just to be factual

A woman considered sexually promiscuous.
A woman prostitute.
A slovenly woman; a slattern.

The first definition is what it most commonly meant by people calling WOMEN sluts.

But we all know that the term doesn't apply to women ONLY

the dictionary definition is outdated not only in this sense, but also in that being promiscuous isn't that taboo or seen as wrong by the large majority anymore.

Especially in my generation

Wed Apr 30, 2003 4:02 pm

Jesse

Joined: 02 Jul 2002
Posts: 6165
Location: privileged homeless

Dictionaries are generally very good about keeping up with colloquial language. Webster's just added "Bling-bling", for example. They don't just add words, they also add definitions when a word becomes complicated through usage.

Usage has not generally broadened as much as you would say it has.

Anyway, if you'll take a look at my original post, you'll notice that I don't consider broadening of the term to be a terribly progressive pursuit. It's a filthy fucking word and I'd prefer to see us outgrow it rather than feeding it.

Wed Apr 30, 2003 4:16 pm

Nope

Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 1916

Jesse wrote:
It's a filthy fucking word

I agree. But I'm not one to be politically correct. I'll use words with negative or taboo connotations for my own purposes. Brainwashing, masturbation, slut, etc

Quote:
Usage has not generally broadened as much as you would say it has.

Mine has

Regardless, I disagree with this. My generation seems to be very open to the fact that slut doesn't really only apply to women anymore. Maybe it's just here in the east coast (I've been up and down)

AND, me using the word the way that I do OPENLY, might make people question their use of it only to refer to women.

In fact, it has happened in more than one occasion. Making people think and question everything that they do is a goal of mine...so you gotta look at it from that perspective.

Last edited by Nope on Wed Apr 30, 2003 4:27 pm; edited 1 time in total